churn today in the form of the tourist industry, the continued denial of compensation for subaltern groups for damages rendered (and still rendering in places where U.S. imperialism led to the irradiation of indigenous land in the Pacific), and in foreign and domestic policy highlights the fact that to "colonize" is not to perform a neutral action, nor to imply a neutrality. To "colonize" is to subjugate, destroy, rape, murder, exploit, and so on.
|This is what colonialism looks like: fat old white guys exploiting the innocent.|
The fact that to "colonize" cannot imply a neutral without playing into the legacy I've thus far described means we need to start thinking about human involvement in space within different terms. "Settlement" would be a much more effective term, since it has always signaled a multitude. Yes, to "settle" was always a part of the colonial enterprise, but it has also always referred to the process of settlement, which may or may not involve the settlement of spaces owned or occupied by others. For science fiction, this seems like a perfect term to use, since the genre often imagines human settlement as encompassing the varieties of the old forms of settlement. Humans in science fiction settle on uninhabited asteroids, moons, or planets, but they also sometimes colonize planets that don't belong to them, which is a kind of settlement to begin with (albeit, a violent form).
So, if possible, could we stop referring to our extension into the stars as "colonizing space" and instead call it "settling space?" It is a) a much more effective term for encompassing the varieties of human expansion, and b) a term which avoids the political implications of misuse.
But maybe my endless study of colonialism and postcolonialism has tainted me. What do you think?
(This post is partly in response to Nicholos Wethington's post at Lightspeed about colonizing the solar system. I don't disagree with the project, per se, but I do thing the term is a problematic one as indicated above.)